Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
This is just like how people got mad when that video of the Missouri teen came out showing him robbing a store and bullying the small store clerk. Instead of saying that he was making himself look bad by robbing the store, the police department are accused of "character assassination" and racism for showing the public what the teen was actually like.Why do "WE" have to assume intentional deception (lying)? He's the one who attempted to inform us concerning the beliefs and practices of Muslims. (And the ONLY one who did so I might add.) And he used an article which itself used PRIMARY SOURCE. Surely that PRIMARY SOURCE can't be accused of intentionally deceiving us as well (or does it too come under the doctrine of telling non-Muslims lies in order to increase the power of the Muslim religion?)
Does mindlessly following blogs that fit your worldview fall under that category?
You still haven't answered the question. Please back up your statements about the SPLC or retract them, or we would have to assume you are lying.
And as I try to keep faith in people, I'd rather not do that.
We'll see about that. There is much less text here to pour over and refute than jihadwatch's filth, so it should be cake. PM me when you're addressed each of these claims. Make sure that each of your answers is detailed with sources better than Mr Chick's, lest you be no better than him.
FAQ's Concerning Roman Catholicism
Why should he do that when you haven't addressed one single claim of jihadwatch as false or invalid?
And that reinforces my belief that what it says in the article about Islam is true. If it's so ridiculous it would have been easy for someone to refute at least one thing that's in it. Even the so-called "academics" rely solely on the ad hominem logical fallacy in arguing against it. The same secular "academics" will get Catholicism totally wrong, but we're expected to trust what they say about Islam.Why should he do that when you haven't addressed one single claim of jihadwatch as false or invalid?
Why should he do that when you haven't addressed one single claim of jihadwatch as false or invalid?
And that reinforces my belief that what it says in the article about Islam is true. If it's so ridiculous it would have been easy for someone to refute at least one thing that's in it. Even the so-called "academics" rely solely on the ad hominem logical fallacy in arguing against it. The same secular "academics" will get Catholicism totally wrong, but we're expected to trust what they say about Islam.
Weren't we told that the article used the Koran which is a Primary Source? How is that crazy and hate filled and inaccurate then?
Then why not read both instead of the censorship of one?
Then why not read both instead of the censorship of one?
Since they can't argue with the facts of the article they have to repeat over and over that the article can't be trusted hoping that others will go along and not actually analyze the facts for themselves.Weren't we told that the article used the Koran which is a Primary Source? How is that crazy and hate filled and inaccurate then?
If it is claimed that the article in question is inaccurate, in what way? What are the specifics? Aren't we allowed to read all articles in question--ones that are considered accurate (are there any?) and this one that everyone seems to be against? What's wrong with reading all? (For instance, I've read both the Jack Chick series--the booklets were actually sent to me from the Catholic League--and also the Catechism of the Catholic Church. And I think that the Catholic League is right for encouraging the reading of both. Allows a person to know what is REALLY being said.)
And another thing, why can't we ascertain the accuracy or inaccuracy of the article in question without talk about the site that the article is from? (I've never figured that out. How DID we devolve from discussing the information put out there for our reading to discussing the site where the information came from? Those are two different thoughts.)
Since they can't argue with the facts of the article they have to repeat over and over that the article can't be trusted hoping that others will go along and not actually analyze the facts for themselves.
It's intellectual dishonesty and laziness.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?